My fantasy. And a question for liberals

aCultureWarrior

BANNED
Banned
LIFETIME MEMBER
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
When you say "private" do you mean someone hiding in their basement by themselves where no one else can see them praying to whichever god they choose to pray to, or can private also mean a church congregation?

Yeah, I mean like in the home. Their churches shouldn't be allowed to exist.

But many churches exist inside homes.

But I don't think the government should be checking every time lots of people get together at a house to see whether its a religious gathering

So you want blasphemy laws but just don't want them strictly enforced?


Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
So that we're on the same page:

Blasphemy:

great disrespect shown to God or to something holy

: something said or done that is disrespectful to God or to something holy
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/blasphemy

Would it not be "blasphemous" for Muslims to openly deny that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and was resurrected on the third day?

My question is:

How is it possible to have blasphemy laws while allowing other religions to voice their doctrine that "disrespects" the deity of Jesus Christ the Son of God/God in the flesh?

I see what you're getting at but I think there's a difference between disagreement and disrespect.

There's a difference between saying "you know, I really don't believe in the virgin birth or in Christ's resurrection" and saying "Christ was a bastard and his mother was a whore" (the latter line, I think was in some Orthodox Jews writings.)

But you're ok if these things are said behind closed doors? (See my response to your earlier statement above).

I think the former could be expressed but the latter would be punishable even if it was an atheist or other non-Christian who did it. However, someone who professed to be Christian but openly denied the resurrection or the virgin birth would be punishable even if he didn't blaspheme.

I hope that helps. I'm sure you could throw some gray areas at me that I'd have a harder time dealing with, and ultimately Christian judges will have to make decisions. But I think there's a difference between sincere unbelief (not necessarily punishable) and blasphemy (always punishable.)

It's helped greatly to define what you really desire:

a theocracy.

That being said, let's talk about the major differences between what some might consider a theonomy and what a theocracy is.

As Jefferson pointed out in his article:

The basis for building a Christian society is evangelism and missions that lead to a widespread Christian revival, so that the great mass of earth's inhabitants will place themselves under Christ's protection, and then voluntarily use his covenantal laws for self-government. Christian reconstruction begins with personal conversion to Christ and self-government under God's law; then it spreads to others through revival; and only later does it bring comprehensive changes in civil law, when the vast majority of voters voluntarily agree to live under biblical blueprints.
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4462073&postcount=146

Now I don't want to downplay the importance of civil government, because it was the change of laws that got us into the moral hellhole that we're in today. Laws do have a huge influence on people, and as I've shown in this article is a way to lead people (and thus a society) back to righteous living (and even Christ).

Civil Government: The Neglected Ministry
http://www.reformed-theology.org/html/issue08/civil_government.htm

Back to theonomy v theocracy:

Jefferson wisely talks about a "bottom up" approach to converting people to Christianity, which amongst other things would later bring about righteous legislation in civil government.

What you propose is a "top down" approach where powerful religious theocrats amongst other things force their religious doctrine upon others. While their laws may come from the Bible, their penalties are not just (stoning to death homosexuals and adulterers, etc.) as they leave no room for mercy and repentance.

I hope that you see that a theonomy type mold is a wise way to go about taking our once Christian nation back and not a theocracy.
 
Last edited:

Quetzal

New member
then explain to me exactly how a liberal only country is supposed to survive from being irrelevant and self destructive with an ever decreasing birth rate?
You are making a very basic mistake in believing that a liberal nation's abortion percentage would be so high that it would create the scenario in your head.
 

jeffblue101

New member
Every last one of them.

This begs the question: where do liberals come from?

your question reveals that liberalism is not a self maintaining worldview but a rebellion from such a worldview. so I admit that without liberals rebelling against God they simply would not exist from their own population.
 

Granite

New member
Hall of Fame
your question reveals that liberalism is not a self maintaining worldview but a rebellion from such a worldview. so I admit that without liberals rebelling against God they simply would not exist from their own population.

What on earth are you babbling about?
 

jeffblue101

New member
You are making a very basic mistake in believing that a liberal nation's abortion percentage would be so high that it would create the scenario in your head.
its already happened in Japan, and its also a fact that liberals have a birth rate that is much lower than the replacement birth rate of 2.1, so the logical consequence of that is long term population shift into irrelevancy.
 

Quetzal

New member
its already happened in Japan, and its also a fact that liberals have a birth rate that is much lower than the replacement birth rate of 2.1, so the logical consequence of that is long term population shift into irrelevancy.
Japan is also one of the most over populated nations in the world. The cause for their most recent decline is not due to abortion alone.
 

Granite

New member
Hall of Fame
Japan is also one of the most over populated nations in the world. The cause for their most recent decline is not due to abortion alone.

It's also worth pointing out to anyone with a pulse or some sanity that assuming American political divisions have anything whatsoever to do with Japanese culture, social norms, or mores is the acme of sheer stupidity.
 

Caledvwlch

New member
then explain to me exactly how a liberal only country is supposed to survive from being irrelevant and self destructive with an ever decreasing birth rate?

Your operating assumption about the number of abortions that would be performed in this hypothetical Liberal Land is staggeringly silly.
 

jeffblue101

New member
Japan is also one of the most over populated nations in the world. The cause for their most recent decline is not due to abortion alone.
first of all, I never said abortion "alone" I also included a statement of aggressive contraception use. Next Japan is not "overpopulated", whatever that means, its problems stem directly from an ever aging population.
 

Caledvwlch

New member
does that mean it was posterous ahead of time ? i'd rather be postposterous; posterous after the fact

Actually, if you scratch at it a little harder, "posterous" already has "post" in it. So now the whole term is an oxymoron.

Pre- post- erous. Before-after whatever "erous" means.
 

jeffblue101

New member
It's also worth pointing out to anyone with a pulse or some sanity that assuming American political divisions have anything whatsoever to do with Japanese culture, social norms, or mores is the acme of sheer stupidity.

I never said anything about political divisions, instead I provided an example of a country that is struggling because of a low birth which in turn would provide a real example of what would happened to the hypothetical western liberal america.
 

Caledvwlch

New member
I never said anything about political divisions, instead I provided an example of a country that is struggling because of a low birth which in turn would provide a real example of what would happened to the hypothetical western liberal america.

But why are you assuming a low birth rate?
 

Granite

New member
Hall of Fame
I never said anything about political divisions, instead I provided an example of a country that is struggling because of a low birth which in turn would provide a real example of what would happened to the hypothetical western liberal america.

There you go again. You're assuming a "low birth rate" is

a) something that inevitably happens to liberal western Americans
b) which lead to "decline"
c) which is somehow, for some reason, applicable to Japan

You may be thinking that since "blue" or less-than-politically-conservative states in the U.S. have lower birth rates than their "red" counterparts you're onto something. But that speaks only to the illegitimate births, unplanned pregnancies, and overall ignorance of sex-ed endemic in conservative (usually southern) states.
 

jeffblue101

New member
Your operating assumption about the number of abortions that would be performed in this hypothetical Liberal Land is staggeringly silly.
I never said abortion alone but for the sake of discussion why wouldn't abortions skyrocket in the hypothetical liberal west? It would be safe, government funded and probably free, no age gestational limits, no guilt or public shame, and a change a of mind later in the pregnancy would be welcomed. Under such a society how is it even remotely possible for abortions alone not to have a negative impact on birth rates?
 

Granite

New member
Hall of Fame
I never said abortion alone but for the sake of discussion why wouldn't abortions skyrocket in the hypothetical liberal west? It would be safe, government funded and probably free, no age gestational limits, no guilt or public shame, and a change a of mind later in the pregnancy would be welcomed. Under such a society how is it even remotely possible for abortions alone not to have a negative impact on birth rates?

Because any country with legal abortion has comprehensive sex-ed and ready access to contraception: The goal is to reduce the number of abortions needed in the first place, not to have as many as possible.
 
Top